Performance appraisal is a key element of human service employee management. Every organization has some way of measuring employee performance, whether the method is formal or informal, explicit or implicit, subjective, or objective (Lewis et al., 2011). According to Millar (1998, as cited in Lewis et al., 2011), a sound performance appraisal system should meet three criteria: practical, reliable, and valid. Ideally, the performance appraisal system should measure what it is supposed to measure, be acceptable to all staff—fair, be consistent in appraisal results for all staff and be user friendly (Lewis et al., 2011).
While performance appraisals are meant to help develop an employee, the appraisals are also judgmental to achieve organizational compliance, resulting in punishment or rewards. In such a system, an employee could feel like a victim of punishment. There are reasons why employees fear performance appraisal. Among the arguments to eliminate performance appraisal, according to Adler et al. (2016), are:
Delegate your assignment to our experts and they will do the rest.
The disappointing interventions
The lack of consistency in ratings of the same performance
The failure to develop adequate criteria for evaluating ratings
The weak relationship between the performance of rates and the ratings they receive
The conflicting purposes of performance ratings in an organization
Lack of relationship between performance rating research and real practice.
Making evaluation valuable to workers
Following the reasons mentioned above, employees hate performance appraisals; appraisals cannot, however, be thwarted off because of their necessity in organizations. There are opportunities to improve performance appraisals so that workers find them valuable and less threatening.
One way to improve performance approval is to make it fair. Fairness can be achieved by involving subordinate employees in designing and developing both the performance criteria and the appraisal process (Lewis et al., 2011). The representative group of employees is trained on the performance appraisal system's design based on their knowledge of actual subordinate work. Appraisal mechanisms should be based on objective criteria that have been created after a thorough understanding of jobs performed.
Performance rating scales that rate employees in the linear scale range of "excellent" to "poor" are vague, subjective, unreliable, and flawed. A better scale can be used based on the behavior of an employee. Approaches such as the behaviorally anchored rating scales (BARS) and the use of management by objectives (MBO) are adequate criteria for evaluation (Lewis et al., 2011). BARS is based on employee tasks, and the employee will be accountable to specific objective s by the end of a rating period. The objectives are written and are measurable over time. If the BARS tasks are enough to challenge an employee and be reasonable so that achievement is tenable, then both administration and human service workers win.
Management's performance appraisal role is to ensure that tasks and objectives are accurately documented to reflect the job done (Murphy, 2017). It will help in improving the appraisal system as well as the employee's satisfaction with the system. After an evaluation is done, the management has a duty to identify training and improvement possibilities. What ensues is an overall increase in productivity across the human service organization.
Another task for managers is to supply the employee with a copy of the specific job description. On top of this, managers give the necessary tools to employees to perform assigned tasks (Lewis et al., 2011). Employee training is another managerial task that is part of the manager's role in evaluation. Proper training leads to improvement in employee productivity and the satisfaction of clients. A supervisor is supposed to ensure the individual goals and the goals of the organization are coherent. This mutuality helps the organization achieve its goals.
The manager is supposed to provide constructive feedback to employees. Along the way of tackling tasks assigned, managers give counseling and support to employees regarding performance issues and correct the path of an employee in case they stray from organizational objectives (Murphy, 2017). Managers are the first people in an organization to identify performance dip and fail to follow human service work ethics by employees before the customers feel the effect.
Effectiveness of GCC program and planning design
The GCC staff did a needs assessment for the teen transition and treatment program and realized an overall goal of ensuring that a teenager with co-occurring disorders upon completing the program will be substance-free (Lewis et al.,2011). The specification of objectives backed the achievement of this goal. Objectives are measurable, and therefore, the accomplishment of all objectives automatically qualifies the achievement of an organizational goal.
For a human service organization to be deemed effective, objective outcome achievement is critical. The organization's purpose relevance to social needs is measured against the outcome objectives. The objectives of GCC were developed after an evidence-based practice search was completed. The staff of GCC came up with four outcome objectives and three process objectives for the teen transition treatment program. According to Lewis et al. (2011), the process above is effective at achieving goals and therefore, the GCC is capable of meeting its human service goals.
According to GCC's organizational chart, that the organization lacks enough administrative levels to facilitate supervision. The organization is also divided geographically. The primary supervisor at GCC is Estrella, the executive director and program coordinators. Adequate supervision allows for an organization to cater to needs that differ across different neighbourhoods in which GCC does not satisfy.
At the GCC, the role of supervisors is to enable supervisees to work with clients and community members. Over the years, GCC clientele has evolved into a more diverse cultural group of people. To supervise effectively, the supervisor needs to know the cultural factors affecting others (Lewis et al., 2011). It is essential to identify at the onset points of convergence and divergence between supervisors and supervisees. Helping professionals should acknowledge the racial and cultural factors affecting relationships with clients (Lewis et al., 2011). Racial and cultural differences affect the human service environment, for GCC to continue providing effective services, the supervisors have to be trained on diversity. GCC is currently at risk of racial and cultural frictions with clients and between employees. Supervisor training will reduce cultural and racial abrasion and improve diversity at the organization.
Leona Estrella on assuming the role of Executive Director for Grandview Community Center improved the information system design for it to capture more data on client characteristics and human services delivered. Stakeholders needed to evaluate the teen transition and treatment program to grant a new contract (Lewis et al., 2011). GCC had one client and one community member on each team, and on the steering committee, therefore, GCC agency does not officially evaluate itself fully.
References
Adler, S., Campion, M., Colquitt, A., Grubb, A., Murphy, K., Ollander-Krane, R., & Pulakos, E. (2016). Getting Rid of Performance Ratings: Genius or Folly? A Debate. Industrial and Organizational Psychology, 9 (2), 219-252. doi:10.1017/iop.2015.106
Lewis, J. A., Packard, T. R., & Lewis, M. D. (2011). Management of human service programs . Cengage Learning.
Millar, K. (1998). Evaluating employee performance. In R. Edwards, J. Yankey, & M. Altpeter (Eds.). Skills for effective management of nonprofit organizations (pp. 219–243).NASW Press.
Murphy, K. (2019). Performance evaluation will not die, but it should. Human Resource Management Journal , 30 (1), 13-31. https://doi.org/10.1111/1748-8583.12259
